3 ms·

Can you help me understand how criminalizing abortion makes women less free than men? It sounds like your premise is that women have less freedom in personal c

Can you help me understand how criminalizing abortion makes women less free than men? It sounds like your premise is that women have less freedom in personal choice than men when abortion is not available. Presumably this is because men can walk away from a child while women are physically bound to them. Do I have that correct? If so, women are really only physically bound to the child through the pregnancy. Once the child is born, the woman can give it up for adoption and be done with it forever. I would also contest that men aren't totally free of sexual consequence. If they do happen to impregnate a woman, they can be forced to pay child support while the child is a minor. The "abortion is murder" argument also doesn't totally meet the GGP's premise necessitating A and B. That is, if society is unwilling to provide a safety net for born, unwanted children, no contradiction exists if society also refuses to allow abortion. This just means society does not allow murder. After all, a society that does not provide a safety net does not explicity allow the murder of poor people. Just as a society that disallows murder does not necessarily have to provide nourishment via the government.

zamalek 1y ago
> If so, women are really only physically bound to the child through the pregnancy. Financially also. In America, child birth will set you back 10-15k insured or 30-50k uninsured. Who pays for that? The woman who has been unable to work due to the debilitating condition that late stages of pregnancy is for most woman? > Once the child is born, the woman can give it up for adoption and be done with it forever. That doesn't deal with what happens to the child. I assume the GP comment is concerned with "pro-life" vs "pro-birth." Many self-proclaimed pro-lifers actually advocate for birth, not life.
- hellojesus 1y ago
  > Financially also. In America, child birth will set you back 10-15k insured or 30-50k uninsured. Source? This Forbes article shows <$3k mean out of pocket costs. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/health-insurance/how-much-does-it-cost-to-have-a-baby/ https://www.forbes.com/advisor/health-insurance/how-much-doe... I had a baby 3 months ago. It was nowhere near $10-15k, and for some completely unknown reason to me and my spouse the hospital applied a 75% needs-based discount. I'm not even sure if we hit the total out of pocket max for the year, but even if we did the cap is only roughly $6k. > That doesn't deal with what happens to the child. I assume the GP comment is concerned with "pro-life" vs "pro-birth." Many self-proclaimed pro-lifers actually advocate for birth, not life. Birth is life. True, babies will die if not cared for, and that would be seen as a child abuse murder. But there are plenty of adoption agencies, etc. that exist. Plenty of non government orgs that exist. It is unlikely a child will die of hunger, especially in a developed country. And if there are no people willing to adopt the child with which the new mother is burdned? Tough. Maybe consider that when one engages in sex. But in a society that views abortion as murder: murder is murder. Having flippant sex and then murdering a child to prevent raising it should probably be at least equated to voluntary manslaughter. Sure, you didn't mean for the situation to arise, but your previous decisions resulted in the outcome nonetheless. It seems the push for treating abortion as non-murder is really a push for a world in which sex and babies are decoupled. But just as sex and disease cannot be decoupled except through careful planning and purposeful engagement, neither can sex and babies.
Propelloni 1y ago
> Can you help me understand how criminalizing abortion makes women less free than men? Imagine there would be a law that disallows men to cut their hair, but allows it for women. Who would be less free here? > It sounds like your premise is that women have less freedom in personal choice than men when abortion is not available. Presumably this is because men can walk away from a child while women are physically bound to them. Do I have that correct? Your presumption is partially correct. > If so, women are really only physically bound to the child through the pregnancy. Once the child is born, the woman can give it up for adoption and be done with it forever. They are also less free because such a law -- even if only for the time of pregnancy -- prescribes a lifestyle with very limited choices. Ignoring that the physique of a pregnant woman makes some things mostly impossible, thus making the woman less free, I also guess anti-abortionists are not in the habit of applauding pregnant women who drink and smoke while stage-diving on a heavy metal concert. And while this is hyperbole I assume you get my drift. > I would also contest that men aren't totally free of sexual consequence. If they do happen to impregnate a woman, they can be forced to pay child support while the child is a minor. But would you accept that men are mostly free? For example, where's the woman in child support? Do the men have to pay the woman 9 month+ for pain, puking, limited lifestyle choices, and possible health consequences, too? Or how about strapping an additional 100g of weight to the man's belly for each week of the 40+ weeks of pregnancy? While we are at it, let's give him a good kick in the stomach once or twice a day for that time. What about the misery you feel when you are forced to do something you don't want to every waking and sleeping minute? You know, its not like a job where you are done and go home at 5 p.m. These arguments about money treat women as unfeeling delivery machines, nothing but cattle really, which in itself not only makes them less free, it makes them less than men. > The "abortion is murder" argument also doesn't totally meet the GGP's premise necessitating A and B. That is, if society is unwilling to provide a safety net for born, unwanted children, no contradiction exists if society also refuses to allow abortion. This just means society does not allow murder. After all, a society that does not provide a safety net does not explicity allow the murder of poor people. Just as a society that disallows murder does not necessarily have to provide nourishment via the government. Leaving aside the question if the removal of a lump of cells that can not be sustained outside of a woman's womb is homicide, let alone murder, in any meaningful sense, I am happy to engage with your premises. So, the society you paint does not care about the child or the woman, it cares about murder. That's technically fine (the best kind of fine) if you are honest about it. Opponents to abortion in that society do not claim they care for children or women. Because, again according to your premises they don't, they just want that no murders happen. So nobody cares about the children, thus there is no inconsistency, which is great. It follows that this society should be fine with the woman, or anybody really, leaving the unwanted newborn on a park bench where is dies from starvation or weather, because that's not murder. Frankly, I would be shocked if anybody would think that would be fine, but the premises and line of argument you offer would allow just that.
BrandoElFollito 1y ago
A woman who is pregnant is tagged by society with "mother". The man who leaves is not. Legally yes, but socially not. The mixer who abandoned her child is "a mother who abandoned her child". The father is not even in the picture. I would live to live in a world where the rational words cubby, but culture, history, religion is still very strong. And I live in France, love of the most free countries in the world in this regard.

zamalek 1y ago

> If so, women are really only physically bound to the child through the pregnancy. Financially also. In America, child birth will set you back 10-15k insured or 30-50k uninsured. Who pays for that? The woman who has been unable to work due to the debilitating condition that late stages of pregnancy is for most woman? > Once the child is born, the woman can give it up for adoption and be done with it forever. That doesn't deal with what happens to the child. I assume the GP comment is concerned with "pro-life" vs "pro-birth." Many self-proclaimed pro-lifers actually advocate for birth, not life.

hellojesus 1y ago
> Financially also. In America, child birth will set you back 10-15k insured or 30-50k uninsured. Source? This Forbes article shows <$3k mean out of pocket costs. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/health-insurance/how-much-does-it-cost-to-have-a-baby/ https://www.forbes.com/advisor/health-insurance/how-much-doe... I had a baby 3 months ago. It was nowhere near $10-15k, and for some completely unknown reason to me and my spouse the hospital applied a 75% needs-based discount. I'm not even sure if we hit the total out of pocket max for the year, but even if we did the cap is only roughly $6k. > That doesn't deal with what happens to the child. I assume the GP comment is concerned with "pro-life" vs "pro-birth." Many self-proclaimed pro-lifers actually advocate for birth, not life. Birth is life. True, babies will die if not cared for, and that would be seen as a child abuse murder. But there are plenty of adoption agencies, etc. that exist. Plenty of non government orgs that exist. It is unlikely a child will die of hunger, especially in a developed country. And if there are no people willing to adopt the child with which the new mother is burdned? Tough. Maybe consider that when one engages in sex. But in a society that views abortion as murder: murder is murder. Having flippant sex and then murdering a child to prevent raising it should probably be at least equated to voluntary manslaughter. Sure, you didn't mean for the situation to arise, but your previous decisions resulted in the outcome nonetheless. It seems the push for treating abortion as non-murder is really a push for a world in which sex and babies are decoupled. But just as sex and disease cannot be decoupled except through careful planning and purposeful engagement, neither can sex and babies.

Propelloni 1y ago

> Can you help me understand how criminalizing abortion makes women less free than men? Imagine there would be a law that disallows men to cut their hair, but allows it for women. Who would be less free here? > It sounds like your premise is that women have less freedom in personal choice than men when abortion is not available. Presumably this is because men can walk away from a child while women are physically bound to them. Do I have that correct? Your presumption is partially correct. > If so, women are really only physically bound to the child through the pregnancy. Once the child is born, the woman can give it up for adoption and be done with it forever. They are also less free because such a law -- even if only for the time of pregnancy -- prescribes a lifestyle with very limited choices. Ignoring that the physique of a pregnant woman makes some things mostly impossible, thus making the woman less free, I also guess anti-abortionists are not in the habit of applauding pregnant women who drink and smoke while stage-diving on a heavy metal concert. And while this is hyperbole I assume you get my drift. > I would also contest that men aren't totally free of sexual consequence. If they do happen to impregnate a woman, they can be forced to pay child support while the child is a minor. But would you accept that men are mostly free? For example, where's the woman in child support? Do the men have to pay the woman 9 month+ for pain, puking, limited lifestyle choices, and possible health consequences, too? Or how about strapping an additional 100g of weight to the man's belly for each week of the 40+ weeks of pregnancy? While we are at it, let's give him a good kick in the stomach once or twice a day for that time. What about the misery you feel when you are forced to do something you don't want to every waking and sleeping minute? You know, its not like a job where you are done and go home at 5 p.m. These arguments about money treat women as unfeeling delivery machines, nothing but cattle really, which in itself not only makes them less free, it makes them less than men. > The "abortion is murder" argument also doesn't totally meet the GGP's premise necessitating A and B. That is, if society is unwilling to provide a safety net for born, unwanted children, no contradiction exists if society also refuses to allow abortion. This just means society does not allow murder. After all, a society that does not provide a safety net does not explicity allow the murder of poor people. Just as a society that disallows murder does not necessarily have to provide nourishment via the government. Leaving aside the question if the removal of a lump of cells that can not be sustained outside of a woman's womb is homicide, let alone murder, in any meaningful sense, I am happy to engage with your premises. So, the society you paint does not care about the child or the woman, it cares about murder. That's technically fine (the best kind of fine) if you are honest about it. Opponents to abortion in that society do not claim they care for children or women. Because, again according to your premises they don't, they just want that no murders happen. So nobody cares about the children, thus there is no inconsistency, which is great. It follows that this society should be fine with the woman, or anybody really, leaving the unwanted newborn on a park bench where is dies from starvation or weather, because that's not murder. Frankly, I would be shocked if anybody would think that would be fine, but the premises and line of argument you offer would allow just that.

BrandoElFollito 1y ago

A woman who is pregnant is tagged by society with "mother". The man who leaves is not. Legally yes, but socially not. The mixer who abandoned her child is "a mother who abandoned her child". The father is not even in the picture. I would live to live in a world where the rational words cubby, but culture, history, religion is still very strong. And I live in France, love of the most free countries in the world in this regard.